Khalsa v. Associated Toronto Taxi-Cab Co-operative Limited (Co-Op Cabs), Board of Inquiry, May 1980 BOI 113

IN THE MATTER OF THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF MR. GURUFATHA
KHALSA OF TORONTO, ONTARIO, ALLEGING DISCRIMINATION
IN EMPLOYMENT BY ASSOCIATED TORONTO TAXI-CAB CO-
OPERATIVE LIMITED (CO-OP CABS) , 56 0 KING STREET WEST
TORONTO, ONTARIO.

DECISION

MAY 16, 1980

E.J. RATUSHNY
BOARD OF INQUIRY

1
t

f

IN THE MATTER OF THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF MR. GURUFATHA
KHALSA OF TORONTO, ONTARIO, ALLEGING DISCRIMINATION
IN EMPLOYMENT BY ASSOCIATED TORONTO TAXI-CAB CO-
OPERATIVE LIMITED (CO-OP CABS) , 560 KING STREET WEST
TORONTO, ONTARIO.

DECISION

On the 9th day of January, 1980, I was appointed a
board of inquiry to inquire into the complaint made by Mr.
Gurufatha Khalsa that he was discriminated against in employ-
ment because of his creed in contravention of section 4(1) (a)
of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The facts are not in dispute. Mr. Khalsa is a Sikh
by religion and it is a central tenet of that faith that
adherents not cut their hair or shave their beards. Upon
applying for a position as a taxi driver with the respondent,
Mr. Khalsa was informed that he could not be considered since
it was the long-standing policy of the company not to hire
men with beards or long hair. There is no suggestion of malice
or intended discrimination on the basis of religion on the part
of the respondent. The policy was considered to be beneficial
for business reasons in the company's relation with the public.

After the complaint had been filed, the respondent
sought legal advice and was informed that the discriminatory
consequences of the policy to persons in Mr. Khalsa 's position

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2013

http://archive.org/details/boi113

constituted a contravention of the Code. The respondent took
a conciliatory position and was prepared to settle the matter.
The respondent indicated a willingness to display in a conspi-
cuous place on its premises a notice of the company's intention
to abide by the Ontario Human Rights Code. The respondent was
also prepared to send a letter of apology to the complainants
and the draft of such a letter was filed with the board.

The respondent was prepared to receive a renewed
application from the complainant. However, the complainant
no longer wishes to apply for the position. Counsel for the
respondent argued that an award of monetary compensation was
not appropriate since the respondent had acted without malice
or intention to discriminate. Neither the complainant nor the
Commission requested that an order of compensation be included
in the order.

The complainant sought to be represented by his agent,
Mr. Gurutej Khalsa and the board permitted him to participate
in the proceedings. His basic objection was not with respect
to the proposed terms of the settlement but with the basis
upon which the contravention of the Code had been established.
He asked this Board to decide not only that there was a con-
travention of the Code in relation to the complainant by virtue
of his religion but also to hold that the term "creed" was
broad enough to encompass any conscientious belief that the
hair of a person's body should not be cut, even where that
belief did not have a religious component.

- 3 -

The Board ruled that it would be inappropriate to
hear representations on that issue in this case since to do
so would be beyond the mandate granted by the Board's Appoint-
ment with reference to the provisions of the Code.

I have therefore decided, pursuant to section 14 c. (a)
of the Ontario Human Rights Code that the respondent has con-
travened that Act. In view of the position taken by the parties,
I order that:

(1) The respondent display in a conspicuous place on its
premises, a notice of the company's resolve to abide by
the Ontario Human Rights Code; and

(2) The respondent send a letter of explanation and apology
to the complainant and to the Commission;

(The letter should be in the form of the draft letter
which was discussed by the parties at the hearing and
amended as a result) .

I am grateful to counsel and to Mr. Gurutej Khalsa
for the direct and lucid manner in which they expressed their
respective positions.

Dated this 16th day of May, 1980.

/sh